A little girl will release a single red balloon in Times Square at 8 a.m. Thursday morning as part of a global campaign to raise awareness of the suffering in Syria, whose horrific civil war began three years ago to the day.

Thousands will gather in candlelit vigils at iconic sites around the world, from Moscow to Washington, to mark the grim anniversary with the red balloons carrying messages of hope to Syrians.

Those three years have seen at least 140,000 people killed, with 2.5 million refugees outside the country and another 6.5 million internal refugees. One in 10 Syrian children has fled the country. Some 9.3 million people are in dire need of humanitarian assistance.

The “girl with the balloon,” an image created by the artist Banksy, is part of an international effort led by the group #WithSyria to raise awareness of the human suffering behind those numbers — and to remind Westerners that the orphans, the starving, the homeless and the sick are “regular” Syrians, not the bloodthirsty combatants.

And awareness is much needed. Consider Jared Leto’s wonderful shoutout at the Oscars to the people of Ukraine and Venezuela, struggling for freedom. That set a new standard for normally vacuous Hollywood. But Syria, which has bled for so long, didn’t make the cut.

#WithSyria wants to change that. Some 115 humanitarian and human-rights groups from 24 nations, including CARE, Save the Children and the International Rescue committee, have joined to push world leaders to commit to making this the last anniversary marked by continued bloodshed. Their campaign calls for urgent action to ensure that Syrians in need, even those under siege, can access aid, and for the voices of ordinary Syrians to be heeded in new peace talks.

While the efforts of #WithSyria are important, the hard fact is that there’s no immediate answer to those innocents’ suffering that doesn’t involve the United States.

And, as usual in the age of Obama, we have millions of reasons to stay out — and they all start with the mantra “no boots on the ground.”

Perhaps this third anniversary is an occasion to rethink.

On Tuesday, the UN announced the opening of a third camp for Syrian refugees in Jordan — a nation whose leaders are terrified because these refugees may soon outnumber Jordanian citizens.

Why shouldn’t there be a safe haven for Syrians on Syria’s soil?

The Turks and others proposed just that early on in the war. The idea went nowhere after the Obama administration ruled out any serious US commitment, which was needed to make it happen.

But things are different now: The war’s been a bonanza for the bad guys.

Early on, the fight was by liberty-seeking Syrians out to unseat a tyrant. But as we enter the war’s fourth year, Washington officials are at least as concerned about the regime’s opponents as they are about the tyrant.

Sunni jihadist “foreign fighters” from across the Muslim world have flocked to Syria, backed by wealthy Gulf states that care more about a Sunni victory over Assad and his Shiite sugar daddies in Tehran than about the shape of post-war Syria.

These jihadists have carved out areas they control. Assad, aided by Hezbollah and Iranian fighters, controls other areas. Even Russia (which gives Assad a diplomatic shield at the United Nations and elsewhere) has its naval base in Tartous, on Syria’s Mediterranean shore.

Why can’t we help the innocent Syrians control some territory of their own?

To help resolve the humanitarian crisis, we should gather a coalition of the willing — NATO members plus interested Arab countries — and lead them on a mission to carve out a Western-backed zone inside the country, where Syrians in need can flee.

That base can also house a small number of American Arab-speakers and specialists who would help local Syrian leaders defeat Assad and the outsiders.

By and large, Syrians aren’t in love with the foreigners who don’t bother to hide the fact that they’re fighting to make Syria part of a Sunni caliphate to use as a base for attacks against Europe and America. Nor do they welcome Lebanese and Iranian fighters who see Syria merely as part of a “Shiite crescent.”

In the 2008 surge, Gen. David Petraeus led a successful effort to help Sunni Iraqis repel similar foreign fighters. There’s no reason such an effort can’t succeed in Syria — except it requires a small number of, yes, American boots on the ground.

Consider too: A US-led international humanitarian-oriented campaign can have the added benefit of changing world attitudes toward America.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin might think twice about extending his Crimea grab into other parts of Central Europe. China might pause before annexing yet another disputed atoll. Iran might even reexamine its assumption that the true meaning of Obama’s “all options are on the table” is that America has no options left.

Yes, we often hear these days that military efforts don’t belong in the 21st century. Nice slogan. But if we allow Syria’s carnage to fester for another three years, is our time any better than past centuries?